Author
Topic: Don't want to make a rookie mistake (Read 15041 times)

I have just begun to get hooked on DSLRs over the past yr. My wife had an XSi that I learned on before purchasing the T4i in June. I am looking to spend between $800 -$1200 on a new lens. I currently have the EF-S 55-250 IS, EF-S 18-55 IS and a 40mm STM. I mostly take pictures at sporting events, choir concerts (indoors with lower lighting), family events (holidays, weddings, graduations, etc.) and city landscapes.

I am currently looking at the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS, 70-200 f4LIS, 135 f2L. I am looking for a lense that would be good enough off a tripod/monopod as well as handheld.

With my lack of experience in photography, I want to make sure that I am considering all options, but want to rely on the expertise of people with much more experience than I.

All suggestions on other lenses are appreciated as well.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

Looks like you have enough focal range coverage with your current set-up, so what you need is a fast lens... The 135 f2L fits the bill for indoor sports / portraits/ family events... up your alley in the price department too..

I disagree with the recommendation for the 135 f/2 - excellent lens, but on a crop it will be a bit long on occasion and it would burn up your entire budget. Instead I would recommend the folowing.

- Purchase the EF 85 f/1.8 ($359 today at B&H) - this will cover most of your fast lens indoor needs, and has excellent focus, and is very sharp. The AF will keep up with your sports and give you a fast lens for low light events like choir concerts where you might need the range.- Purchase a flash - I recommend the 430 EX II ($245 today at B&H). This will give you the ability to take excellent pictures indoors with your kit lens, and introduces you to the world of lighting.- Sell your 55-250, and purchase the EF 70-200 f/4L (non IS) $629 today at B&H. For outdoor sports, wildlife, etc. You don't need IS for sports because your shutter speed will need to be approx 1/500 and at that point IS isn't going to add value. This is one of the best value L lenses and one of the sharpest 70-200 lenses.- Buy a tripod (buy the best one you can with the money you have left). You will want this for your landscape shooting.

You can get all of the above for what you wanted to spend on one lens (after selling the 55-250). Plus, with the above gear your photography will advance much further.

- Sell your 55-250, and purchase the EF 70-200 f/4L (non IS) $629 today at B&H. For outdoor sports, wildlife, etc. You don't need IS for sports because your shutter speed will need to be approx 1/500 and at that point IS isn't going to add value. This is one of the best value L lenses and one of the sharpest 70-200 lenses.- Buy a tripod (buy the best one you can with the money you have left). You will want this for your landscape shooting.

You can get all of the above for what you wanted to spend on one lens (after selling the 55-250). Plus, with the above gear your photography will advance much further.

My 2 cents.

Agreed. I'd consider a used 70-200 f/4 IS instead of the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. The IS version is sharper, and way more versatile due to IS.

I'd probably leave the 70-200mm f4 IS out of the list, despite it being a very sharp and useful lens.... It just doesn't stop action indoors well enough. You're better off with the 70-200 2.8 with monopod, but personally I'd pick the 135mm f2 for indoor sports (I shot a lot of basketball) because with 85mm I'd always feel like I needed to be closer but couldn't because I didn't want to interrupt the game. But if you can get close enough the 85mm is a really good bang for the buck lens for your situation. Also, with my copies of both I'm very comfortable shooting the 135mm at f2, although when i had the 85mm 1.8 I had a tendency to stop it down to 2.2 or smaller a lot in order to equal the average amount of keepers on my 135L. Again, these were just my copies of those lenses.

For what it's worth... if F4 isn't enough to stop action, F2.8 likely wont either, and then you have even small DOF and focus will be that much more critical, and quite frankly, the 9 pt Af from the rebel likely wont be able to keep up... If you had a 7d or 5d3 or something like that, then sure... But otherwise, F4 should suffice... I cannot recommend the 135 as you would likely need 1/200 just to freeze camera shake... It's a sharp lens when on a tripod in ideal situations... but the distance and lack of IS is a dealbreaker... I had a second shooter with the 5d and 135.... Camera shake was so bad almost no interior shots were acceptable... I told him to use a monopod and he assured me he was good... Anyways... 70-200 F4 IS is a great lens... 70-200 F2.8 IS is even better but double the price and even more razor thin AF.. Perhaps the 100mm L is something to consider... You got a quality macro... quality AF and IS... It is a great portrait lens and gives a lot of options... Plus gives you the 2.8 if you need it.

It's just so similar to the 85mm in every way =P people go for the 85mm because of popularity and it's been very popular as a focal length, for decades. An extra 15mm... Not that big of a deal in the short telephoto range. I remember this from comparing 85mm and 100mm shots from my 70-200 before. Actually, 85mm vs 135mm isn't that big of a difference on crop either when looking through the viewfinder, but only if you can walk back and forth to compensate distance. 100mm is like 85mm to me when shooting closer to infinity. Just my honest opinion.

I have a 70-200 f2.8L II which I bought to primarily shoot indoor sports, ie volleyball, basketball, wrestling, etc.. While it is ok in some situations, it is not fast enough in most. I recently purchased the 135 f/2 and wow, what a difference that extra full stop makes. I am shooting on a full frame body; however, in your case you will have a little more reach. That is easily solved by moving around until you find the best shot to shoot from. I take shots from various locations in the gym every time I shoot.

What focal length range do you find most of your photos fall in?If I were you I'd sell the 18-55 and get the 17-55 f2.8 is and keep the 55-250.The 17-55 is a great all rounder lens. I found the focal length of the 70-200 a bit too tight on crop for me, might be useful for indoor sports depending on how big the place is, but then you're left with the 18-55 for general purpose / family event stuff. And also the 55-250 isn't too bad either.

I have just begun to get hooked on DSLRs over the past yr. My wife had an XSi that I learned on before purchasing the T4i in June. I am looking to spend between $800 -$1200 on a new lens. I currently have the EF-S 55-250 IS, EF-S 18-55 IS and a 40mm STM. I mostly take pictures at sporting events, choir concerts (indoors with lower lighting), family events (holidays, weddings, graduations, etc.) and city landscapes.

70-200 f4 is a strong contender, though you'll want to consider the f2.8. Downside is that it likely won't be quite fast enough for indoor sports; for that I'd get the 100 f2 or 85 f1.8 (assuming you're on a budget).

I've an f4 lens (Sigma 100-300 f4) and it's good but an f2.8 aperture is missed for it's ability to blur distracting backgrounds a little more than the f4 lens and provide very high shutter speeds for sport etc.

I don't find the size of the 100-300 f4 (comparable with the 70-200 f2. a problem, especially since the 55-250 can be brought along instead. The 70-200 f4 is a good lens but it's still fairly sizeable & weighty.

I looked at the suggestions to get a 135 f2 for indoor sports. Problem with that is that the 70-200 nails it for all but one of your uses; the 135 nails just indoor sports and means you're compromising with everything else by having the f4 lens; background blur moving from f5.6 to f2.8 is significant, the intermediate step to f4 is not so impressive.

What focal length range do you find most of your photos fall in?If I were you I'd sell the 18-55 and get the 17-55 f2.8 is and keep the 55-250.The 17-55 is a great all rounder lens. I found the focal length of the 70-200 a bit too tight on crop for me, might be useful for indoor sports depending on how big the place is, but then you're left with the 18-55 for general purpose / family event stuff. And also the 55-250 isn't too bad either.

I tend to find myself using the 55-250 about 75% or more of the time. when using that lens most shots fall between 116-250.

If you can afford $1,600, I'd get a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. While it won't stop action as well as the 135mm f/2 lens except at 190-200mm, it's much more versatile and almost as sharp. Also consider the 100-400mm ($1,087) and the 300mm f/4L ($927) lenses, if reach and/or price is more important to you than aperture.

If you can afford $1,600, I'd get a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. While it won't stop action as well as the 135mm f/2 lens except at 190-200mm, it's much more versatile and almost as sharp. Also consider the 100-400mm ($1,087) and the 300mm f/4L ($927) lenses, if reach and/or price is more important to you than aperture.

The next step up from these lenses is the 200mm f/2L lens ($6,000).

It's 1750 after taxes unless you are assuming that he doesn't have to pay tax. 100L would be the way to go considering his budget